readerforum.

Married lady

So Hillary Clinton thinks that "marriage has a traditional meaning as an institution that ... most people in this society accept" ["Hillary: Up Close and Personal," October 24]. Well, what is it exactly about her marriage that conforms to that traditional meaning? Furthermore, she feels it is "important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good" in supporting domestic partnership or other types of marriage-lite arrangements rather than same-gender marriage itself. It's so very convenient for her thereby to cast herself as good and virtuous and her opponent as evil. This is even though Rick Lazio's record and stated positions on same-sex marriage are no different from hers.

Colin Gallagher, San Francisco, Calif.

I found within your interview a very profound statement by Hillary Clinton while discussing her take on gay marriage: "It's important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." A few days later I caught part of the presidential debate, in which Al Gore and George W. Bush addressed gay marriage. Bush's response was that he would be "tolerant"--which points up a very clear difference between the Democratic and Republican attitudes toward our issues. One says, "It's not perfect, but it's a step"; the other says, "I wouldn't even be dealing with you if I didn't have to." Until the Republican Party can get free of the self-righteous, moralizing "unchristian wrong," I cannot even consider voting for one of its candidates.

Roy Montgomery, Lily Dale, N.Y.

Thanks for putting Hillary on the cover. I saw her march at the pride parade in New York City. Seeing her come down the street brought a complete feeling of pride over me. I feel she will be a great asset to New York and the gay population.

Pat Austin, Danbury, Conn.

All broken up

I have mixed feelings about your article on the breakups of Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher and Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche ["Losing That Loving Feeling," October 24]. As a psychologist, educator, and trainer on GLBT issues, I have spent considerable time teaching others about the difference between sexual orientation and behavior. I disagree with Doug Haldeman that these women are heterosexuals when in opposite-sex relationships and lesbians when in same-sex relationships. This takes us back to the old stereotype that to be considered a bisexual, one has to be sexually/romantically involved with persons of both genders simultaneously! As a woman who has been with another woman for 23 years, I can tell you that I continue to be attracted to both sexes. This is because my orientation is bisexual. But this is different from my behavior, which is that of a lesbian. Articles such as this not only serve to demonize bisexuals but also keep them in the closet.

Rim Drapkin, Murrysville, Pa.

My experience has been that women face pressures within the lesbian community to clearly identify ourselves. Bisexuality is still frowned on and looked at suspiciously, and reluctance to identify oneself sometimes labels a person as straight. For a woman to safely involve herself with another, or the lesbian community in general, means to identify as strictly lesbian--or else. In reality, many women experience their sexuality as more fluid. I too feel unnerved by the prospect of becoming involved with a woman who might one day flop to the other side. But until we loosen up and allow women to honestly speak about the variations in their orientation without the threat of ostracism, we will continue to have these rude awakenings of rolling over one morning and finding our lover has taken off with the Culligan man.

Susan Coles, via the Internet

Victoria Price's article brought tears to my eyes (again) and relief to my heart ["What Did We Expect From Them?" October 24]. I was beginning to think that I was one "queer" queer in reacting so personally and so emotionally to the breakups. I didn't even want to tell my gay friends how upset I was or how I actually mourned these two divorces. Thanks for putting things in perspective and reminding me I wasn't alone.

Chris Mayer, Ambler, Pa.

Greening of America?

Your interview with Ralph Nader given me a lot to think about. I've always considered him a champion of the people because of his work on important issues like auto safety and the living wage. The language he used in your interview leads me to believe that he's given gay rights a lot of thought, which was refreshing to hear after Bush and Gore, who seem capable of giving only "the company line."

What's on the minds of those considering voting for the Green Party is that this election is so close and that voting for Nader only robs votes from Gore, who seems to be the best game in town for now. The key to this issue is understanding that politics is a long-term process. It's true that Nader will not win the 2000 election, but if he gets enough votes, he could be in the debates and have a reasonable chance of winning in 2004. A term of Bush as president might be a concession I'm willing to make if it gives Nader a real shot in four years.

Hans Crash Hageman Mount Laurel, N.J.

Choose wisely

How wonderful it must be to have a choice of two candidates who support gay concerns ["Friend or Family?" October 24]. I don't see the problem in Vermont. A candidate should not be elected because he or she is gay but on how well they represent your views on the issues. As far as family or friend? As many of us know, family can be hard to deal with, but we have no choice--whereas our friends are the ones we have chosen.

Dale Leininger, San Francisco, Calif.

The company you keep

I read your article "Tempting Gay Employees" [October 24] and found that we qualify as a top company for gays here at Motorola. Several years ago we formed Gay and Lesbian Employees at Motorola. Our main thrust was to supply Motorola with needed information to facilitate getting domestic-partner benefits. We were successful. Some in that group got promotions, not because of participation in this effort but because we were in line for them and it was the right thing to do.

I am a 55-year-old African-American. There are many directions I could feel prejudice from, but that has not happened. I think Motorola is a pretty great place for a gay person to flourish and succeed.

Butch Edwards, Austin, Tex.

I would have liked to have seen Andersen Consulting on your list. With over 65,000 employees and $9 billion in revenue last year, Andersen might be one of the largest private companies to be progressive in this area. Two years ago Andersen added sexual orientation to our nondiscrimination policy, and this past June we were given same-sex domestic-partner benefits. Perhaps next year well get sexual orientation added to our diversity outreach programs and be able to make The Advocate's list.

Michael Heilala, Atlanta, Ga.

Gays and the GOP

Your columnist Jonathan Capehart rewrites recent history in justifying "Why We Need Gay Republicans" [Last Word, October 24]. The Bush campaign was in complete control of the Republican convention and was able to assert its will in changing the party platform to its liking. George W. Bush could have had the antigay language removed if he had wanted. Mary Cheney may have been on "display" during the convention, but where was her partner while her sister's husband was onstage with the family? And Rep. Jim Kolbe's speech on international trade rather than on gay issues was hardly a "Wake that!" to the religious right. Kolbe should be ashamed of being a part of such a charade. But then he is a gay Republican, and they seem to have no shame.

Keith Susman, Phoenix, Ariz.

Capehart misses one grave by-product of Log Cabin's wish to increase the number of gays who affiliate themselves with the GOP: People like Trent Lott and Dick Armey and all the rest who would block any legislation beneficial to us as a community would remain in power.

William Lyna, Woodside, N.Y.

For the record

In our "Whistle While You Work" story in the October 24 issue, the caption on page 34 should have identified Sara Hamblin as being on the left and Kathy Worthington on the right. The Advocate regrets the error.

Please keep letters brief and to the point; we reserve the right to edit all letters as deemed necessary. Letters must include the home address and phone number of the writer and should be sent to Letters to the Editor, The Advocate, P.O. Box 4371, Los Angeles, CA 90078; faxed to [phone]; or E-mailed to [e-mail]. We cannot respond to letters individually. For general information, send an E-mail to [e-mail] with info typed in the subject line of your message.